For law students like us, the editorial “Clarity from Comelec” (7/28/18) was very disturbing as it revealed how dishonest the Supreme Court can be, acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal presiding over the election protest filed by defeated vice presidential candidate Bongbong Marcos. By that account, it shamelessly pretended ignorance of the policy set by the Commission on Elections regarding the “applicability of a 25-percent threshold.”
The Supreme Court, aka PET, was duly furnished a Comelec resolution setting the threshold at 25 percent, which was duly received by its en banc clerk of court Felipa Anama. So, would the PET now blame its clerk for suppressing or hiding that document from the PET members? What motive would she have to do that? Who worshipped the Marcoses in the first place by judicially entitling its late patriarch to a “hero’s burial” despite public outrage?
This country is already sick and tired of never-ending charges of electoral sabotage.
In the wake of “Hello Garci,” where no one was ever sent to jail, the people are no longer scandalized by such shenanigans. Do we also have to endure the “judicial sabotage” about to happen in the highest court of the land itself?
GABRIELLE MICHELLE M. AGUILLERA, gamma.reyna@gmail.com